aiqbench analysis
This study empirically evaluates the fidelity of large language models as simulators for individual financial decision-making within controlled paper-trading environments. Results indicate that while market context aids in predicting trading actions and tickers, models struggle with transaction sizing and exhibit systematic behavioral compression, such as over-predicting hold actions and under-predicting sell decisions. These findings highlight current limitations in replicating complex temporal portfolio behaviors, suggesting a need for larger-scale evaluations before deploying LLMs for high-stakes financial simulation.
Are LLMs Good Financial User Simulators? A Preliminary Study
arXiv:2609.15727v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as user simulators, but their ability to reproduce evolving individual financial decisions remains unclear. We present a preliminary study in a controlled paper-trading environment with 120 volunteers. Participants used non-redeemable virtual funds under real-time market conditions; no real brokerage accounts, real-money positions, or real transaction records were accessed. Given only information available before a prediction cutoff, a simulator predicts the participant's next-trading-day action, traded security, and transaction quantity. We evaluate temporally aligned rolling predictions and compare settings with and without point-in-time market information. Market context improves action and ticker prediction in the controlled ablation, while transaction sizing remains difficult. We also observe systematic behavioral compression: models overproduce hold actions, underpredict sell decisions, and simplify multi-security transactions. These results provide an initial empirical characterization and motivate larger-scale evaluation of individual, temporal, and portfolio-level behavioral fidelity.
Title:Are LLMs Good Financial User Simulators? A Preliminary Study
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as user simulators, but their ability to reproduce evolving individual financial decisions remains unclear. We present a preliminary study in a controlled paper-trading environment with 120 volunteers. Participants used non-redeemable virtual funds under real-time market conditions; no real brokerage accounts, real-money positions, or real transaction records were accessed. Given only information available before a prediction cutoff, a simulator predicts the participant's next-trading-day action, traded security, and transaction quantity. We evaluate temporally aligned rolling predictions and compare settings with and without point-in-time market information. Market context improves action and ticker prediction in the controlled ablation, while transaction sizing remains difficult. We also observe systematic behavioral compression: models overproduce hold actions, underpredict sell decisions, and simplify multi-security transactions. These results provide an initial empirical characterization and motivate larger-scale evaluation of individual, temporal, and portfolio-level behavioral fidelity.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2609.15727 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.15727v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15727 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 251 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

What We're Up Against: An AI Safety Crash Course
LessWrong · Sep 24, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026